Frequently asked questions about thinking, epistemology, and cognitive tools. 1431 answers
Revising a model in response to evidence is the defining act of a strong thinker. The refusal to update is not confidence — it is cognitive debt accumulating interest.
Incremental schema revision is less disruptive and more accurate than complete overhauls. Small, frequent updates preserve continuity with what already works while correcting what does not. Large, rare overhauls destroy functional structure alongside dysfunctional structure, overwhelm working.
Incremental schema revision is less disruptive and more accurate than complete overhauls. Small, frequent updates preserve continuity with what already works while correcting what does not. Large, rare overhauls destroy functional structure alongside dysfunctional structure, overwhelm working.
Incremental schema revision is less disruptive and more accurate than complete overhauls. Small, frequent updates preserve continuity with what already works while correcting what does not. Large, rare overhauls destroy functional structure alongside dysfunctional structure, overwhelm working.
Record what new evidence or experience caused you to revise your schema. Every schema update has a trigger — a specific observation, conversation, failure, or piece of evidence that shifted your model. If you do not capture that trigger at the moment of change, you lose the provenance of your own.
Record what new evidence or experience caused you to revise your schema. Every schema update has a trigger — a specific observation, conversation, failure, or piece of evidence that shifted your model. If you do not capture that trigger at the moment of change, you lose the provenance of your own.
Record what new evidence or experience caused you to revise your schema. Every schema update has a trigger — a specific observation, conversation, failure, or piece of evidence that shifted your model. If you do not capture that trigger at the moment of change, you lose the provenance of your own.
Record what new evidence or experience caused you to revise your schema. Every schema update has a trigger — a specific observation, conversation, failure, or piece of evidence that shifted your model. If you do not capture that trigger at the moment of change, you lose the provenance of your own.
Start a trigger log today. Choose a schema you have recently updated — or one you suspect is currently shifting. Write a dated entry with four fields: (1) The schema before the update (what you previously believed), (2) The trigger (the specific evidence, experience, or observation that initiated.
Retroactive rationalization. The most common failure is not failing to log triggers — it is logging the wrong ones. When you reconstruct a belief change after the fact, your brain does not retrieve the actual trigger. It constructs a plausible narrative. You remember the trigger that makes the.
Record what new evidence or experience caused you to revise your schema. Every schema update has a trigger — a specific observation, conversation, failure, or piece of evidence that shifted your model. If you do not capture that trigger at the moment of change, you lose the provenance of your own.
Label your schema versions so you can compare current thinking to past thinking.
Label your schema versions so you can compare current thinking to past thinking.
Label your schema versions so you can compare current thinking to past thinking.
Label your schema versions so you can compare current thinking to past thinking.
Pick one belief you hold strongly right now — about leadership, learning, relationships, or your craft. Write it down as v1.0 with today's date. Then recall what you believed about the same topic two years ago. Write that as v0.x. Note what changed and why. You now have two explicit versions of.
Versioning without substance — slapping 'v2' on a belief without recording what actually changed or why. This creates the appearance of rigor while preserving the same intellectual fog. If your version label doesn't come with a diff (what changed) and a trigger (why it changed), it's decoration,.
Label your schema versions so you can compare current thinking to past thinking.
Some schemas should be marked as outdated and replaced rather than patched indefinitely.
Some schemas should be marked as outdated and replaced rather than patched indefinitely.
Some schemas should be marked as outdated and replaced rather than patched indefinitely.
Some schemas should be marked as outdated and replaced rather than patched indefinitely.
Identify one belief, process, or mental model you currently operate under that you have patched more than three times. Write down its original purpose, the patches you have applied, and the problems that persist despite those patches. Then write a single sentence: 'This schema is deprecated as of.
Treating deprecation as deletion. You archive the old schema with its context, rationale, and lessons learned — you do not erase it. The other failure mode is never deprecating anything, which produces an ever-growing pile of contradictory rules you half-follow and half-ignore.